Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead - Page 3

Not really. This is a topic of national Constitutional debate that we'll not solve here. The Bill of Rights are each guaranteed to individuals... all other 9 amendments. The 2nd is no different. The "militia" argument is about as Constitutionally valid as a "Free Speech Zone" is to the first amendment.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the phrase "free speech zone" actually occurred in the first amendment. Maybe that's just not in my copy.

I'm just glad that Shay's Rebellion wasn't put down singlehandedly by Chuck Norris, otherwise we'd have wound up with a second amendment that read "An ass-kicking karate dude with a moustache being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to learn ass-kicking karate and grow 70s moustaches shall not be infringed."

That 2.5 million statistic seems to have some problems.

But I'll point to a Harvard study that has pretty universally damning statistics against other aspects of gun ownership.

Consider the source. Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics. The issue is complex and the "numbers" can be assembled to show either side is "right." I know the only statistic that means anything to me- I am free, safe, and so is my family. The criminal is back in jail where he belongs. The gun was the difference.

I was pointing out that the same folks who get nuts and repeal amendment 2 so often are willing to go to the mat for the first one. Both of them are there. I consider banning guns as contemptible as banning free speech, except in certain "zones." We all should be outraged by BOTH violations of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees all the rest.

The 2nd amendment is out of sync with the times as it was written in a very different era.

Yes...a following NSPOF study says the following:

"Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance
to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates
before embracing them. Because respondents were
asked to describe only their most recent defensive
gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they
assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The
results still suggest that DGU estimates are far
too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and
robbery attempts do victims use guns in
self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8,
the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF
estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all
NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated
assaults. If those percentages were close to
accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!"

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

I really dislike folks that conflate bogus statistics to support some hallowed position. The fact is that there can be responsible gun use/ownership AND gun control at the same time.

There are certainly good recreational and defensive reasons for gun ownership but of all the gun owners I know, other than the military guys, no one has fired at another human in anger. I would hazard none have even pointed a loaded gun at another human even though I know a couple that would undoubtably pull the trigger in a home invasion scenario...if not with glee, then with no hesitation. So what are the odds that I would happen to know the only dozen or so gun owners (including a couple gun nuts complete with the arsenal of democracy in their gun safes) without a DGU incident with 2.5M incidents per year?

If there were a DGU every 13 seconds there's be a whole lot more dead perps and bystanders because I don't believe for one moment that all those respondents have gone through gun safety training or spent any appreciable time learning not to shoot people accidently in a panic situation or actually hit the perp if they actually needed to shoot at them.

Vinea

I think they thought they had the original shooter in custody.

Silly me. I forgot about the "Agenda".

If I wanted to read the NRA talking points I'd go to the NRA website. But thanks...I think. "Kallipornia"?? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Is "DiFi" the next version of "WiFi"?

Let's Google "DiFi" because that's another new one for me. Ahhh, got it. Fifth search result. Wouldn't you know it. It's Michelle Malkin and Free Republic lingo. Brilliant!

"Even" Diane Feinstein, I'm sorry, "DiFi" carries one eh? You got me there. Not like she's one of California's Senators or anything.

Whatever Gilsch. Believe whatever you want. Millions of us will not surrender our rights just because you say we should.

The NRA has trained more people in gun safety than any other organization, as well as provided more trigger locks than anyone to gun owners. No one is more in favor of the safe, responsible use of firearms than gun owners themselves. When things go bad, it's OUR rights you guys come after.

I will not debate you personally on this. We will not agree in any way. Just another waste of time.

Doesn't seem you "debate" anyone on the topic. When presented with data against your views you simply dismiss them as biased.

Also the NRA does not represent gun owners given the number of NRA members and the number of gun owners. NRA supporters claim the disparity is because the 75 million or so non-members are lazy. The other possibility is that the NRA doesn't really reflect the views of the majority of gun owners...

Vinea

I applaud your "proper" and effective use of a gun to save your own life; I am sure yours is one of a very few similar cases. My grandpa was almost shot with is own gun when it was wrestled from him during a burglary gone wrong; fortunately, he knew other ways of defending himself and put the guy in the hospital for long time.

Can you imagine if any or all of the students (so some people won't misinterpret my message) in the classroom had had guns? The last thing you want is a room full of weekend warriors without sufficient training and experience trying to defend themselves (they would have shot each other, themselves and created a mess just as bad as actually happened; they probably would not have saved their lives). Not to mention that the school would have banned weapons anyway (otherwise, "Drinking Party Ends in Shooting" would be an all-too common headline). I am a teacher and have dealt with difficult kids of all ages, and you do not want any of them to have access to guns; the scary thing is they seem normal to the average eye and would easily pass background checks.

Take a class in law enforcement and observe the criminal mind; the fear of getting caught and the repurcussions are not that high on their thought process. The death penalty does not prevent crimes from happening; some would argue that does achieve one thing: it saves money wasted keeping an idiot in jail forever on tax-payer money.

Read my post on statistics... both sides can twist whatever they want to fit. That is a silly accusation. Please do better.

Also, please tell me what the other 71 million gun owners believe that the NRA doesn't...

"All the kids in the classroom..." These are adults, those over 21 who can legally possess a handgun. Those under 21 cannot even possess the ammunition, much less the gun itself. Also, to get a CHL, you must show proficiency in all areas- safety, storage, proper use of force, no criminal record, and that you can pass a target test. It's not like we just hand them out for the asking. It takes time, money, effort, skill, and a clean record to get a CHL.

Wording changed so that you cannot attack the wording in order to gloss the message.

About the background checks, some gun owners ain't happy with them:
http://www.gunowners.org/biib.htm


They also may help crime:
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/BackgroundChk.html

Ooops. And then there are the loops:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=210

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/s_backg.html


To get a driver's license, you have to show understanding and obeyance of road laws. How many drivers follow said laws after they pass their test?

Anyone could pass the gun test and get a license.

So i guess that means we should ban driving. It might be used unlawfully and kill people. Nope. The answer is to enforce the existing law.

If you want to go that route, we should ban everything ncluding birth, as it can cause the death of the mother.

That is not what I'm saying and you know you are trying to deflect it. I was saying that it is possible to demonstrate the required knowledge and skills in order to obtain a license; people do this every day.

Banning guns would not eliminate crimes like this one in Virginia (my home state), but would make them harder to commit. When the 2nd amendment was passed, guns were very different fromt the guns of today.

http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1115.shtml

The US also did not really have a military:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-05.htm

We now do have a modern military as well as highly armed police (primarily a result of the weaponry they face). Modern weaponry can pack tremedous killing power in a package easily concealed under a jacket. If the shooter was shooting for a couple of minutes, he had plenty of ammo and easily exchanged magazines, a huge difference from the muskets and bayonets of the Bill of Rights era.

Of course, if the suspect did not have access to a gun and wanted to kill people, he still would have a large range of options, but most would be more obvious than a concealed gun. Crimes will be committed, but the ease with which they are committed can be reduced.

Gunless societies exist.

Japan has an almost complete ban, except for some hunters. There are a few gun incidents (the guns are of course smuggled in), but the user faces a prison sentence if discovered.

There are murders here, but usually stabbings or stranglings, which limits the number of victims dramatically through the difficulty of performing the acts.

I'd say these crimes are easier to commit when law abiding people cannot stop them in progress.
It would be much easier to kill and kill until law enforcement arrived if guns were illegal... nothing could be done but wait for the end. I'm not satisfied with being that helpless.

Then why present incorrect statistics of your own if they are all flawed? In any case, your assertion that violent crime in the UK rose aren't supported.


Perhaps we don't think gun registration is evil and the first step to gun removal? That some guns really have no sporting value and could be banned? I mean jeez, WTF hunts with a .50 cal? There's a bare handful of folks that target shoot with the thing (under 4000).

The last thing I want is some beltway sniper wannabe taking effective shots at 1000+m at people or objects that go boom.

Vinea

The 2nd Amendment is not there for duck hunting alone. The "sporting" thing was cooked up to begin the slippery slide toward banning self-defense arms. The 2nd A says nothing about "sporting" or "hunting." There would not be a United States of America if guns were banned in 1776.

The 50 cal has never been used in a documented criminal act anywhere in the nation.

If Bush suspended the Constitution after a massive terrorist attack, killed dissidents Pol Pot style, and sent political enemies to camps a la Hitler, would you ask for your rights back with a pocket knife? Gun bans killed millions in the 20th century alone. Across the globe genocide almost always followed them.

Virginia is an open carry state and fairly liberal about concealed carry. In fact VT has been criticized for trying to limit guns but they can't for anyone with a concealed carry permit. They do try to restrict "weapon storage" in dorms and vehicles but the law is somewhat murky.

So much for this test of DGU in an open carry, permissive state.

You can argue that since the students didn't avail themselves of this right that its not a fair test but imagine the scenario where there was a similar shooting and now you have SWAT trying to identify WHICH of the armed student body are the actual assailants without accidently shooting (or getting shot by) a few students who are a) under fire for the first time b) were shooting at other student like people wielding guns in c) a panic situation because...this is the first time someone is actually trying to kill them with d) over penetration issues galore with armed but likely untrained students exchanging fire with one or more armed gunmen that are mentally prepared to do a Columbine like act.

MAYBE you have a lower body count. MAYBE not. But you sure have a much more dangerous scenario all around against prepared attackers (ie wearing armor under their requisite black trench coats).

Vinea

Changing the goalposts. You asked what 75M gun owners might not agree with. I gave a couple of potential answers. There's certainly no proof that these 75-80M owners (which I gave you 3M back from the lower figure) believe that the 2nd amendment is particuarly relevent to modern gun ownership or defense of democracy.

If Bush suspended the Constitution then the US armed forces that are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, have to make good on the pledge.

And no, I won't be using either a handgun or a .50 cal that only some handful of folks own if the military and the national guard units all go along with the policy because we'd be completely screwed anyway. We don't live in the Weimar republic, we haven't lost a world war, and Bush is no Hitler and there wouldn't be a country like the US to actually fight and win against a facist America if we went down that path.

The argument is dumb. If we really went America Uber Alles my mossberg isn't making a lick of difference one way or another.

Vinea

PS Documented criminal acts with a .50 cal from a anti-gun site. Take with grain of salt but I remember the 2004 bulldozer one, having watched it on TV. A .50 cal was used at Waco since the Davidans boasted they had something that could punch holes in the light armored vehicles the ATF had which prompted the borrowing of the Bradley.

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

First of I just want to express my deepest sorrow and sympathy to all those who lost loved ones in the terrible event.

That said, we in Australia suffered a similar event ten years ago at Port Arthur, where a gunman killed 35 and 37 wounded.

On a very personal note, it was the same day that I was severely injured victim of a car smash (I was crushed against a tree while sitting at an outdoor cafe)...so I have good reason to remember the date. It was such a beautiful autumnal day, no one could possibly imagine the horror being perpetrated by Martin Bryant against so many innocents.

Shortly after that event, the Australian Federal and state governments banned all automatic and semi automatic rifles along with severely restricting the ownership of handguns.

In consequence, Australia's numbers of gun related deaths have dropped from nearly 900 per year...to just 250 per year.

It may be of interest to my US friends to note, that if Australia had the same population as the US, that it would have meant a drop from approximately 13,000 deaths per year in 1996 to just over 3500 in 2006.

So, taking the guns out of most peoples hands has worked in our country.

I can't see why the same sort of legislative power couldn't be as effective used in reducing such senseless carnage in the US.

You have the power to do it...it only takes for the vast majority to speak up and force legislators to act.

Aquafire.

You mean an era of an oppressive unpopular government? Well, you're right I guess because at least the 2nd amendment was written AFTER we'd dealt with that problem...

OMG!!!




Now, a little on topic. Looks like I'm not the only one pissed as hell about the actions of University.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266460,00.html

This is what I'm wondering too. I didn't know the stats, but I suspected that countries with strict gun lawns have fewer...far fewer..gun deaths.

Source

I Live in the Netherlands. Guns are prohibited here except for hunting. Households with guns are below 1% and gunshot death rate is extremely low compared to the States.
(During last 10 years there were on average between 200 and 300 cases of murder/manslaughter a year on a population of 16 million people, including deaths by other weapons)
News like this makes me very thankfull for the laws and ways of my country.

I'm not sure if I would have more peace of mind but the 2nd amendment proponents would carry more weight with me if they typically owned NVGs, AR-15s, DragonSkin and spent significant effort in a militia training in rapid action drills, cqb, etc or were in the NG to get such regular training and owned their own civilian gear in case the NG was co-opted (a really unlikely event...I would think there would be a few governors that would say no).

Even then, the odds of a civilian light infantry militia offering more than token resistance at the level of the IRA seems like a forlorn hope. Certainly not a facist government on par with Hitler toppling effort.

The colonies succeeded because the disparity between the British military and colonial forces were largely training rather than insurmountable material difference. We could make our own muskets and cast our own cannon. Even then we required French help. A civilian resistance in the modern day could not cast their own M1A1s and F22s. Nor given the post-OKC and post-911 environment could a civillian resistance make as many or as effective IEDs as the Iraqis (it would be more IRA like than Iraqi like).

Frankly, if an oppressive unpopular government were to sieze power in the US it seems very unlikely to me that it would be a liberal government as it wouldn't have the support of most folks in the military. The probablility of Clinton successfully suspending the constitution and instituting an oppresive state was zero even after a 911 like event. Given that in all probability that the sitting president would be conservative means there is a high probability he would have the backing of most 2nd amendment groups if he did have control over the military so I wouldn't have much faith in resistance from that quarter.

Joining the ACLU would seem to have better odds at preventing such an outcome (suspension of constitutional rights) than the NRA.

The argument that an armed populace is more resistant to genocide has merit but limited weight in a 2nd amendement/consitutional protection discussion. I would also guess that such an environment the minority groups in the US would likely be no better able to resist, even armed, than muslim Bosnians against Serbia.

Vinea

Japan has very strict gun policy that bumped heads with the laws in the US when a Japanese exchange student was killed in Louisianna.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/J...un_Control.htm

A page comparing international homicide rates, sadly with slightly old data:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

USA 5.7 of which 3.72 were by firearm
Japan 0.62 of which a mere 0.02 were by firearm

Percentage of households with guns: USA 39%, Japan: 0%

Guns are used by the mobsters, usually against other mobsters.

Wikipedia has an article on the current debate over the appropriateness of the amendment in today's society:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...cond_Amendment
Check out the States' Rights Model

Study your history: the state of the military and miita, terminology of the times, the capabilities of weapons.

Take into account that many phrases in the Declaration and Constitution did not mean at the time what we feel them to mean today, starting with the most known one: "All men were created equal", which did not include women nor Negroes or anyone who was a slave.

Times change. Laws need to, too.

My cousin in North Carolina once suggested a way her family could get rich: the state built a new main road right alongside their farm where the graze their horses. In a law passed way back at the beginning of the automobile era it is unlawful for a car to startle a horse, so when a car comes upon a horse the driver must stop and cover the car. Well, they had to change the grazing field because the horses were getting worked up. If they applied the law, they could possibly get some damages.

Before you scream and yell, it was a joke, but the law is still on the books, but is no longer enforced. It is very interesting how some things get shoved aside but others are held close for eternity.

---

The shooter was a student at VT. Good God.
Each of the dead or wounded had several bullet wounds. He was out to do serous shit; wonder what led him to shoot himself when he did (thankfully he didn't shoot any more victims).

...looks like it's been an issue way before this.


All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.

On Topic, it appears the shooter was from South Korea; this has been brought up in another board I visit that he probably had the mandatory military time there, and was therefore knowledgeable in handling weapons.

Is that all you have?

One trained person with a concealed weapon and we would not have had this tragedy. No guns would be wonderful. Not going to happen here. Live in the real world not your vision of what it should be. Learn to protect yourself.

I have to disagree with you here. The "real world" has about 15,000 gun deaths a year in the US alone. I don't know that getting rid of handguns is the answer, but it should be considered or at least discussed.

Yes, because the two Capitol police officers killed in 1998 were untrained, unarmed and not wearing vests. If Weston wasn't fixated on getting to DeLay, armed with more than a .38 revolver and only desired to simply shoot a lot of folks in the building there would have been more injuries and possibly more deaths.

This is a building with 1000 officers and some of the best security we can put into place in a public building.

Vinea

While this is discussed over the next several decades, I advise people to learn to protect themselves. There will be no major changes for a very long time.

This isn't really about gun laws imo, it's about America's relationship with guns and perhaps more importantly, why people actually go off their heads like this.

With or without gun laws they would still be going berserk - in the UK they just do it with knives (6 or 7 that I know of in London schools last week). For a serious comparison you would need to compare graphs on murders/violent attacks regardless of whether by gun, fist or other means.

I bet this is pretty standard in the US vs countries that have strict gun laws.

The real question is: what is wrong with our allegedly so great western societies that causes people to go off their trolleys?

A very good question, indeed.

Some stats on internationl crime rates:

Murder rates
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Total crime rates (US is #8; New Zealand is #2)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

Assault
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ssault-victims

Rapes
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita